|
When we developed the FishBase concept, back in 1988, we had
the notion that fish taxonomy was in a reasonably good state, that most names
used in the literature would be correct, and that the rest could be dealt with
through synonymies. While these assumptions were largely true, we dreadfully
underestimated the remaining difficulties such as inconsistencies in recent
publications, the necessity to keep track of and completely understand taxonomic
works, and the sometimes detective-like work needed to assign a piece of
information to the proper biological species.
|
Synonymies are difficult to read |
Synonymies are difficult to read. This fact is largely ignored
by non-taxonomists who tend to think that any name listed in a synonymy is an
alias for the species in question. Unfortunately, taxonomic convention
facilitates such thinking, by not forcing authors to highlight cases for which
the above assumption is wrong; i.e., when the listed name actually is a valid
name or synonym of another biological species, and it appears only in the
synonymy because someone at some point confused the two species (see also, ‘The
Role of Taxonomy’, this vol.). Some colleagues will know that such cases should
be marked by a statement such as (‘non Lacepède’) following the species name.
They may not be aware that¾ depending on the
context¾ a comma, colon, or period following the
species name might also flag misidentifications, i.e., names that are not
aliases for the current name.
The most common¾ although usually
harmless¾ confusion in reading synonymies is between
the original author (such as in Scopelus dumerilii Bleeker 1856) and a
subsequent user of the name who, e.g., assigned it to a different genus (such as
in Diaphus dumerili Fowler 1928).
It was only when we started classifying synonyms into
Status: original combination (e.g., Scopelus dumerilii Bleeker
1856); new combination (e.g., Diaphus dumerilii (Bleeker 1856));
misspelling (e.g., Diaphus dumerili (Bleeker 1856)); junior synonym
(e.g., Myctophum nocturnum Poey 1861 of D. dumerilii);
misidentification (e.g., Diaphus effulgens (non Goode & Bean 1896) of
D. adenomus); questionable (needs further research); other (see
Comment field); that we realized the many mistakes we ourselves had made
when reading synonymies.
|
Status We ran numerous logical checks to deteck errors in the SYNONYMS table |
We ran a number of logical checks to identify possible
erroneous records, such as: list all synonyms that match valid names in the
SPECIES table and are not classified as misidentifications; list all synonyms
that point to more than one valid species; list all junior synonyms with the
same specific name as the valid species to which they are attached; list all
original or new combinations with an author different from the author of the
valid name; list all synonyms with the characters ‘non’, ‘not’, or ‘nec’ in
either the author or the comment field, and which are not
classified as misidentifications; etc. Since FishBase 98, we have also compared
all original descriptions and most junior synonyms with Eschmeyer’s (1998)
Catalog of Fishes. We believe that, through this exercise, we have
identified and repaired most errors.
|
Nomenclatural Changes Scientific names are more than labels |
Scientific names are more than labels in that they also reflect
our current understanding of the evolution of fishes. Thus, all species in a
given genus are thought to have a common ancestor, and no offspring of that
ancestor must occur in another genus (i.e., the genus must be monophyletic). The
same is true for the higher taxa of family, order and class, only that the
common ancestor dates further back in time with each higher level.
|
Box 6. Chronology of species descriptions.
For zoologists, scientific taxonomy began with the publication,
in 1758, of the tenth edition of C. Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae. The
FishBase graph showing the number of fish species described since, here grouped
in classes of 5 years (see Fig. 9), takes the same approach.
As might be seen, the graph depicts a see-saw pattern
reflecting individual achievements (Linnaeus 1758; Bloch 1785; Lacepède 1798;
Cuvier and Valenciennes 1828 ff; Günther 1859 ff.; and Boulenger 1909 ff.),
showing a steady rise through the 19th century- the age of European colonial expansion- from about 50 to about 500 new species descriptions per
5-year period.
There is an interesting gap from 1880 to 1890, possibly caused
by the fact that Cuvier, Valenciennes and Günther had described most specimens
available in the collections (Tyson Roberts, Calif. Acad. Sci., pers. comm.).
The graph also shows the devastating impact of World War I (1914-1918), and
especially of World War II (1939-1945), when new species descriptions dropped to
the level of the late 1700s.
Note that most of Linnaeus’ species are still valid today,
because no previous descriptions could turn his names into junior synonyms.
However, some of his names were found to point to the same species and were
synonymized by the first revisers. Most of his names are now in different
genera, thus reflecting our better understanding of the evolution of fishes.
Note also the high rate of duplicate descriptions from the
early 19th to the mid-20th century, probably caused by a
widespread rush to describe new species, coupled with inadequate access to
published literature.
References
Bloch, M.E. 1785. Naturgeschichte der ausländischen Fische.
Berlin, Vol. 1, 136 p.
Boulenger, G.A. 1909. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of
Africa in the British Museum (Natural History). London. V. 1, p. i-xi +
1-373.
Cuvier, G. and A. Valenciennes. 1828. Histoire naturelle des
poissons. Paris. Tome premier. 573 p.
Günther, A. 1859. Catalogue of fishes in the British Museum.
London. Vol. 1. 524 p.
Lacepède, B.G.E. 1798. Histoire naturelle des poissons. Paris.
8 + cxlvii + 532 p.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae
secundum Classes, Ordinus, Genera, Species cum Characteribus, Differentiis
Synonymis, Locis. 10th ed., Vol. 1. Holmiae Salvii. 824
p.
Rainer Froese and Daniel Pauly
|
|
10% of the names change in 10 years |
As ongoing taxonomic work continues to clarify relations
between species, scientific names keep changing. In fishes, as a rule of thumb,
about 10% of the names in any given work will be outdated after 10 years (Froese
1996, 1997). The unique way in which scientific names and references are linked
in FishBase allows to trace such changes and to print a list of nomenclatural
changes for major taxonomic works.
|
Sources |
The SYNONYMS table contains more than 70,000 synonyms,
including junior synonyms, new combinations, misspellings, misidentifications,
and over 25,000 valid names. The information is drawn from references such as
FAO Species Catalogues, regional checklists such as CLOFFA and CLOFETA, and
family revisions such as Pietsch and Grobecker (1987).
|
|
Fig. 9. Species descriptions of fishes at 5-year intervals over
time as contained in FishBase. See Box 6 for a discussion of this
graph.
|
|
Fields |
The table gives the synonymous Name, Author, the
Reference and Page that state the classification or Status
of the synonym (see choices above for Status), and a Comment field for
further information regarding the name, author or references. Double-clicking on
the Name and Author will give species and author information from
Eschmeyer’s PISCES and REFERENCE databases, respectively; on the MainRef,
the full citation of the reference; and, on the Comment field, a SEARCH
window for finding full citation of references mentioned. Further information
regarding original combination of the name may also be found by clicking on the
buttons for Eschmeyer’s PISCES and GENERA databases. Additional
buttons for About (Synonyms chapter in the manual), Glossary,
Print and Status (internal codes and credits) are also
provided.
|
How to get there |
You get to the SYNONYMS table by clicking on the
Synonyms button in the SPECIES table. You get to the Nomenclatural
changes routine by clicking on the References button in the Main
Menu. Eschmeyer’s SPECIES, GENERA and REFERENCE tables can also be accessed for
reference in this table.
|
Internet |
In the Web version of FishBase, click on the Synonyms
link under ‘More information’ in the ‘Species Summary’ page to get to the
information described in this chapter.
|
Acknowledgment |
We thank Kent Carpenter for suggesting to classify synonyms as
described above. We thank Susan M. Luna for her contributions to an earlier
version of the SYNONYMS table. We applaud W.N. Eschmeyer for sorting out the
above mentioned problems in his Catalog of Fishes (Eschmeyer 1998). We
also congratulate Theodore W. Pietsch and David B. Grobecker for their excellent
monograph on Frogfishes of the World (1987), which helped us to
understand synonymies.
|
References |
Eschmeyer, W.N., Editor. 1998. Catalog of fishes. Special
Publication, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. 3 vols. 2905 p.
Froese, R. 1996. A computerized procedure for identifying
misspellings and synonyms in checklists of fishes, p. 219. In D. Pauly
and P. Martosubroto (eds.) Baseline studies of biodiversity: the fish resources
of western Indonesia. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 23.
Froese, R. 1997. An algorithm for identifying misspellings and
synonyms of scientific names of fishes. Cybium 21(3):265-280.
Pietsch, T.W. and D.B. Grobecker. 1987. Frogfishes of the
world. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 420 p.
Rainer Froese and Emily
Capuli
|